Misguided Rhetoric on Rent: A Comment on Ball and Clark

Abstract

Recently in this journal Ball and Clark have debated the theory of land rent. This comment is an attempt to show that the art of wording in that debate has been, above all, misleading. In the process of the controversy the original questions have been displaced by others, and discussion has been choked by ready answers quoted from classic authority. This comment is an attempt to penetrate behind the rhetorical veil and to reveal the important questions that deserve to be discussed in a sincere way. In order to make clear the main issue-the use and the relevance of the theory of land rent-the recent project of Ball is crystallized into a thesis: the received theory of rent should be rejected. Ball's attempts to justify this thesis are weighed, and it is concluded that Ball has not managed to justify the thesis. This means that the alleged alternative theory based on the criticism against the theory of land rent is rather a belief and an illusion than a properly justified stand. Therefore, apart from providing a short outline for an alternative approach, the main outcome of the comment is an invitation to further discussion.

The Dynamics of Land Rents in Housing Submarkets: A Marxian Perspective

“…Subsequently, the inquiry arises: what then constitutes the product of land within the domain of residential space? Haila (1989) discerned that within urban settings, the product of land translates into commodities and services. This perspective is coherent when attributing commodities to industrial land and services to commercial land.…”

Private Urban Land Tenure: Revisiting Anne Haila’s Work on its Nature, Critique, and Alternatives

“…“Dear Sir: It is unfortunate that Anne Haila has chosen in her recent debut contributions to the English‐language discussion of urban land rent to adopt such a negative personal tone,” wrote Michael Ball in a reply to the editor of Environment and Planning A (Ball 1989: 1667). Haila, who was a Ph.D. student at the time, had courageously contested the work of the more senior Ball, describing his comments on rent as “misguided rhetoric” (Haila 1989). Haila emerged at a time of heightened debates between neoclassical urban economics and the Marxian alternative.…”